From ehrhardt@xtra.co.nz Sun Apr 9 01:58:48 2000 Received: from mxu3.u.washington.edu (mxu3.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW99.09/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id BAA39806 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 01:58:47 -0700 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by mxu3.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id BAA31216 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 01:58:45 -0700 Received: from hpcustomer ([210.55.39.190]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <20000409085838.EPG17687901.mta1-rme@hpcustomer> for ; Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:58:38 +1200 Message-ID: <010001bfa201$a9a827e0$be2737d2@hpcustomer> From: "Ehrhardt" To: References: Subject: Re: Redaction Criticism and Q Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:57:39 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Many thanks for Professor Mason's excellent explanations and clarifications, from which I've learnt a lot - so they're not going straight into the 'delete' basket! But spurred on by Michael Hendry's flattering reference, I'm going to risk my thoughts and memories again, even though it's late at night, and I've no books at hand. Still, here are some analogies (of course there are no precise parallels) to the 'Q' situation - Matthew and Luke obviously both drawing from a lost source: what we can we infer about the source? First, the only one I've worked on: Plutarch, Lives of Galba and Otho, and Tacitus, Histories I-III. From where Tacitus starts, 1st Jan. 69, it's all too plain that he and Plutarch are following, with no independent investigation of their own, the same text for much of their narrative, and almost as plain that Plutarch sticks closely to it, while Tacitus re-arranges it for his own purposes (and thereby writes much better history than Plutarch). It is is also obvious that Suetonius, in the relevant Lives, draws on this text, along with other sources; the fragments of Dio leave it open whether Dio also used it, directly or indirectly (as I think likely), or whether it is only a case, as Fergus Millar pointed out years ago (in 'A Study of Cassius Dio'), that two historians writing of the same period must describe some of the same events, and are likely to describe some of them in very similar ways. Second, Polybius III and Livy XXI-XXIV, on the opening years of the Hannibalic War: Livy is not using Polybius here (as of course he does later), but their stories are often very similar - Fabius Pictor? Third, many of the texts in Roman Law: (a) Otto Lenel's Palingenesia is fascinating, in the reconstruction of the texts of the Roman jurists, and one can there see different surviving sources - or different parts of the same source, when it is Justinian's Digest - using their (for us, lost) sources in different ways; (b) the reconstruction of considerable parts of the Codex Theodosianus from the Breviarium Alaricianum (Lex Romana Visigothorum) and other sources, and from the Codex Justinianus; (c) the reconstruction of specific laws from, e.g. the Theodosianus, the Sirmondian Constitutions, and the Fragmenta Vaticana. Altogether, Roman law offers a wide field for Quellenforschung, Form Criticism and Redaction Criticism, and there would probably be much to be learnt like that for understanding Roman Law. Fourth, the historians of the early Church - after Eusebius - and the documents which they, and other authors (like Athanasius) reproduce. Comparison of Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, and the strange work of Gelasius of Cyzicus (which all survive complete) and the fragments of the Arian Philostorgius often shows close, even verbal, agreement, and also remarkable variations. So there are some comparanda, which may make 'Q' seem less than unique. Finally, I will state my belief (based on no knowledge or study) that 'Q' was never a written document, but oral tradition in one or perhaps several Christian communities. After all, one sat at the feet of the Master, whether one was Paul at Gamaliel's, or Mary Magdalene at Jesus', primarily in order to hear his teaching and memorise it. I would also recommend to all students of the Gospels Dorothy Sayers' introduction to her cycle of plays, 'The Man Born to be King'. With good wishes, Chris. Ehrhardt. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Mason" To: Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Redaction Criticism and Q > In case anyone else cares, I more or less acquiesce in both the > content and tone of Phil Snider's assessment. (And to be brutally frank, I > wonder whether Q studies would have had the same panache if the source had > been labelled with some wimpy vowel: "The International I Project"; "The > Case for U"; "The Story of O and Christian Origins". Worst of all: Y) Yet I > would gently recall that questions about the scope, content, and provenance > of Q are precisely what "Q people" talk about in conclave. Was this one > text or more, born mature or revised? What sort of people might have found > it useful or produced it (them)? And why not discuss these things, make a > hypothesis and test it out? > > NT scholars do some seemingly odd things, as classicists do. And > English scholars -- don't get me started. But as long we can all agree that > the sociologists are out to lunch, the world will run as it should. > ____________________ > Steve Mason, Professor of Humanities > Programmes in Classics and Religious Studies > 219 Vanier College, York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada > smason@yorku.ca; 416-736-2100 x66987; fax 416-736-5460 > http://www.yorku.ca/faculty/academic/smason .